Penguin68 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...and a cyclists and emergency vehicles and if
> necessary busses free for all - yes.

So, just to get this straight, Penguin (and with the caveat that I generally respect your posts and think you speak a great deal of good sense), you believe that there should be absolutely no measures to control car use in residential areas? That's going to create (is creating/has created) a very, very unpleasant (and for many, fatal) environment for all. You surely can't conflate buses, first responders and cyclists being allowed to use all roads with allowing private motorists to do the same?

you believe that there should be absolutely no measures to control car use in residential areas? - I didn't say that at all. The 20mph restriction, ULEZ, pressures to move towards electric, hybrid and hydrogen powered vehicles all contribute to either safety or air quality. However removing parking spaces and hence potentially increasing (albeit illegal) speeds may actually add to dangers. Just as an example.

Road closures such as this simply displace traffic to other roads, often thereby actually increasing traffic of those roads and increasing pollution and possibly decreasing road safety on those roads. Fine for those living in the newly 'protected' roads, not so for others.

So my plea for all roads which are actually passable to be used is all about spreading discomfort which may actually decrease 'per household' dangers and pollution. Of course you can plot to make your household particularly safe and pollution free, but only at the expense of others. I'm more in favour of 'equal pain' than 'my gain'.

Penguin68 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you believe that there should be absolutely no
> measures to control car use in residential areas?
> - I didn't say that at all. The 20mph restriction,
> ULEZ, pressures to move towards electric, hybrid
> and hydrogen powered vehicles all contribute to
> either safety or air quality. However removing
> parking spaces and hence potentially increasing
> (albeit illegal) speeds may actually add to
> dangers. Just as an example.
>
> Road closures such as this simply displace traffic
> to other roads, often thereby actually increasing
> traffic of those roads and increasing pollution
> and possibly decreasing road safety on those
> roads. Fine for those living in the newly
> 'protected' roads, not so for others.
>
> So my plea for all roads which are actually
> passable to be used is all about spreading
> discomfort which may actually decrease 'per
> household' dangers and pollution. Of course you
> can plot to make your household particularly safe
> and pollution free, but only at the expense of
> others. I'm more in favour of 'equal pain' than
> 'my gain'.

Penguin68 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you believe that there should be absolutely no
> measures to control car use in residential areas?
> - I didn't say that at all. The 20mph restriction,
> ULEZ, pressures to move towards electric, hybrid
> and hydrogen powered vehicles all contribute to
> either safety or air quality. However removing
> parking spaces and hence potentially increasing
> (albeit illegal) speeds may actually add to
> dangers. Just as an example.
>
> Road closures such as this simply displace traffic
> to other roads, often thereby actually increasing
> traffic of those roads and increasing pollution
> and possibly decreasing road safety on those
> roads. Fine for those living in the newly
> 'protected' roads, not so for others.
>
> So my plea for all roads which are actually
> passable to be used is all about spreading
> discomfort which may actually decrease 'per
> household' dangers and pollution. Of course you
> can plot to make your household particularly safe
> and pollution free, but only at the expense of
> others. I'm more in favour of 'equal pain' than
> 'my gain'.

This represents a fundamental difference in approach: you seem to regard car use as something inevitable, essentially an unavoidable part of the human condition, and so while its huge negative effects must be mitigated, car usage must be facilitated as much as possible. I and others would argue that we have only had mass motor vehicle ownership for around fifty years or so, in which time we have surrendered our public spaces and air quality to them to an insane degree. To enjoy a decent quality of life, car use will have to be restricted. All over the world numerous initiatives to restrict car use, from single street closures to banning cars entirely from city centres, are enjoying considerable success. Sooner or later we are going to have to take the decision as a society to attempt to improve our environment or simply accept the mass premature deaths and illness being inflicted upon the population at present.

There's a great line in the Half Man Half Biscuit song "Breaking News", which concerns a number of people arrested for "annoying the nation". Amongst those held are "People who complain to the council about litter, never stopping to think it is people who drop litter, not the council." It amazes me that so many people on here complain vociferously about congestion and pollution, blaming car-restriction measures, never stopping to think it is cars that cause congestion and pollution. Yes, we know that a number of people have to use cars, but I wonder how many, in reality, of those fuming in their cars on Champion Park, or fuming on here, are really aggravated by the fact that their short, unnecessary journeys are being inconvenienced?

I will try to post the South London Press one too as a photo - I found it on the SLP app. Nonsense about “lengthy consultation” - only residents of Champion Hill and a few small roads off it were leafleted. When residents of Grove Lane and Camberwell Grove and other roads omitted from the leafleting complained, they were told it wasn’t a proper consultation anyway, just an “informal” one, and that the Council could proceed with the trial regardless because an Experimental Traffic Order doesn’t require consultation. There is an online questionnaire that can be completed now on the trial that they have kept very quiet - again, residents weren’t notified but here’s a link to it:

Whoever wrote that letter could walk to Denmark Hill Station go one stop to Peckham Rye then take a Southern train direct to Tulse Hill. I bet it's quicker than driving in rush hour.

---------------------------------
Trains from East Dulwich to Tulse Hill are also a good idea. And not busy trains at that time of the morning.

But for those who need to drive for the many good reasons as people here have previously stated, or need to, this is not a valid option or alternative to everyone I'm sad to say. The extra driving times and extra pollution and traffic for the people who have to drive will continue as long as this road is closed.

Extra traffic along the road of Denmark Hill station that ambulabce's need to get to Kings hospital is quite frightening also! And with so many people trying to access Denmark Hill station at rush hour, the commuters (and they are not using cars of course) to get to work, almost have to que on the road at very busy times, with the extra traffic caused by this silly road closure, this is frightening also. It's only a matter of time before something terrible happens.

I thought the letter to the SLP was very correct at explaining the problems this needless and pointless road closure has caused.

What is very clear though is that people don't choose to because for a variety of reasons their cars are more 'convenient' for them. Even with better cycling infrastructure (which we are A LONG way off) and improved public transport its pretty clear that getting people out of their cars will need some element of 'stick' as well as 'carrot'.

I still don't think though that full time closure of individual roads without a more cohesive plan will make the difference we are looking for as it doesn't prevent the behaviour. Whereas I can see the rationale for school streets as it specifically stops cars idling right outside schools and may make it less beneficial to walk, the same doesn't hold true for ad hoc road closures without some 'destination' on them.

Back to the specific case in point, I am still seeing huge additional traffic on East Dulwich Grove - again this morning the queuing around 8:25am was back beyond Melbourne and Derwent Grove (going towards Dulwich village) and pushing extra traffic onto a route with 5 schools on it just doesn't seem to be the right approach.

.. or walk to Denmark Hill and get the 468 (in a year or two, the child ought to be able to take the bus independently, depending on what the walk is like at the other end), or walk ten minutes to ED and get the train from there.

Also People here are forgetting people need to drive alone this road if you are:

Driving kids to/from schools (shop after to fill the fridge for the children on their return ect) Rush hours in use
Tradesmen (they have heavy tools/ladders materials) rush hours in use can't use public transport ect
Local doctors in cars (this is bad as people really need them I'd think, 100's and 100's of people live on that st)
Palliative health workers (same as above)
The elderly or people driving the elderly around (they simply cannot use local transport, body is knackered ect)
Builders (they need cars/vans/trucks so they can do their work and a service your property)
Local delivery drivers (your Deliverroo/Domino's delivery will arrive later and colder, and will have a knock on affect for the next customer)
Social workers (they drive everywere as too many destinations in one day and pushed to the limits)
People simply driving from other parts of London to another and trying to stay off main routes to save time, money, and pollution? Why should they be forced to joined conjested roads when they are trying to avoid?

Could name many more, but these are the type of car users have no choice, public transport can't facilitate them, that's why they drive, and using the alternative routes just adds time wasted in already congested routes, adds pollution, and traffic and slows everything down, which add more pollution...knocked on affects....

So what do people say here in favor of the closure, or try and say there are other ways, if this is the reality of the problem with this road closure has caused, and in favor, giving the reasons above? How does one fix the problem of drivers needing to drive, to survive, to create income, and care for the people in need, without increasing traffic in other area's which is unneeded in the first place?

James on the 22nd Feb you told us that you live on Champion Hill, is your view of the scheme working tainted by this fact ?

James Barber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PS. I live on Champion Hill and majority of our
> car journeys are now longer but we're also making
> fewer as a family as a result of the closure. So
> all those streets we would have driven along will
> be benefiting...

Are you one of the well connected residents mentioned in the Southwark news article ?

I suspect you have a biased reason for seeing this scheme work despite the views of residents outside of the narrow consultation roads being ignored (figure 8 , page 8 of the councils own report [consultations.southwark.gov.uk] showed only 135 were in favour out of 364 overall respondents )

Surly now, with reported evidence of increased pollution, journey times and cars using surrounding roads as a result of this ill thought through trial, it should be abandoned and the project manager who implemented it against the majority view should go back to the drawing board to look at traffic issues as a whole and not to the benefit of residents in a single road.

Hi TheArtfulDogger,
I have been transparent that I live on Champion Hill. If this scheme to stop A road levels of traffic on a non A road was implemented on another road I would still most likely be supportive - Friern Road two different road closures for example. We must collectively change out of our bad habits for sedentary transport choices that damaging local air pollution and the climate.
The changes were implemented less than a month ago. Way too early to say this trial has been a success or failure.
Road closures are a particularly good and cheap way of changing traffic patterns. Hugely successful towards making cycling so popular in Netherlands and Germany.
And the partial closure of CH impacts negatively over 50% of ALL the journeys we make by car. Access to East Dulwich for us has always been by foot or bicycle.

Consultation responses. Do you favour those living on a road or those who live elsewhere.
Equally double yellow lines were imposed on Champion Hill E-W section against the wishes of local residents - to support the cycle quietway. These consultations have worked for and against CH residents.

I look forward the ULEZ change in the CCZ and then pushing these out for the north and south circular with corresponding reduction in air pollution and traffic levels.

I'm just not sure that public roads being treated as private roads is a very good policy to start with.
I would also like to see the costs of these initiatives. I suspect that there is in fact a huge expense in installing road bumps and these types of 'trials', when viewed in the eyes of an average Southwark resident. I really don't think the scheme has been anywhere good enough at demonstrating that it is a quantifiable experiment or what the considered implications were, let alone what would constitute a successful trial. I think it would be a very good idea to agree standards of these schemes and run them in association with a university, or other independent agency and made available to all residents. That would allow us to learn what makes good trials and look at constants in terms of cost and impact.
I also wholeheartedly think that spending resources doing spot checking on emissions (just look at some of the tailpipes of cars driving around), advertising pollution problems, installing displays on emissions and putting in A LOT MORE charging stations would be infinitely better in their environmental returns to Southwark residents. I also think these charging stations would be lucrative for a cash strapped council. Possible we they could be powered, at least in part, but solar panels funded via the council. Now that would be progressive and inspirational.

I’m afraid I couldn’t work out how to post the whole article legibly so am attaching the first column and I’ll attach the rest separately. It appeared in Friday’s edition of the South London Press (29th March).

Hi talfourdite,
The expense of doing nothing is much higher.
For example the Government Dept of Transport views each individual crash as costing - [www.gov.uk]
Slight £16,434
Serious £213,184 (doesn't include costs before first 18month)
Killed £1,897,129

Apart from the avoidable tragedies resulting from people [usually] driving too fast.

2017 data - see page 10 of this - [content.tfl.gov.uk] - shows 3 Killed and 148 Seriously Injured representing a total cost to society and the families of over £37.24M so investing to reduce speeds, encouraging people to walk and cycle, using pubic transport, making fewer journeys, so we are all driving less often will help avoid catastrophic climate change, improve air quality and reduce the terrible burden driving places on society via crash victims. And I know how hard it is to reduce reliance on car journeys.

Hi sdrs,
What do you propose to reduce CO2, improve air quality and reduce crashes?

The expense of doing nothing is much higher.
For example the Government Dept of Transport views each individual crash as costing - [www.gov.uk]
Slight £16,434
Serious £213,184 (doesn't include costs before first 18month)
Killed £1,897,129

I would suggest incentivising people to move out of London, Give businessess tax breaks to locate to other parts of the country that are far less populated and ideally need to be regenerated anyway.

That combined with current housing costs, and the already increasingly hostile tax environment, GLA up 8%, council tax 3%, CPZ, ULEZ and the rest should ensure London depopulates pretty effectively. Given all the new building going on that should also ensure London becomes an affordable place to live again. Like it was from the 40s to 1980s.

sdrs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I’m afraid I couldn’t work out how to post the
> whole article legibly so am attaching the first
> column and I’ll attach the rest separately. It
> appeared in Friday’s edition of the South London
> Press (29th March).